QuoteReplyTopic: See If You Can Stay AWAKE to the End... Posted: March 16 2010 at 6:32am

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Or the movie failed to unfold it's plot and story properly so you can't follow it.

Honestly, that's a really dumb thing to think. I've seen the film and personally loved it. It has the classic Hitchcockian feel and I thought the twists in the film were revealed really well. But whether you liked the movie or not, it was clear what was going on and only those who didn't even bother to pay attention in the first place would be the ones to not get it because everything was explained rather blatantly. All in all, I think this is one of the few rare thrillers that actually work with good performances by two stars who are rather criticized. Plus, the film managed to tie everything together and to not cheat the audience. This film wasn't screened to the critics so some of the critics, notably Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper, went out and paid to see it on their own and posted positive reviews for the film. If they have still been together on At the Movies, this film would have gotten a "Surprising 2 thumbs up!" I just think this is a really underrated thriller.

Or the movie failed to unfold it's plot and story properly so you can't follow it.

Honestly, that's a really dumb thing to think. I've seen the film and personally loved it. It has the classic Hitchcockian feel and I thought the twists in the film were revealed really well. But whether you liked the movie or not, it was clear what was going on and only those who didn't even bother to pay attention in the first place would be the ones to not get it because everything was explained rather blatantly. All in all, I think this is one of the few rare thrillers that actually work with good performances by two stars who are rather criticized. Plus, the film managed to tie everything together and to not cheat the audience. This film wasn't screened to the critics so some of the critics, notably Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper, went out and paid to see it on their own and posted positive reviews for the film. If they have still been together on At the Movies, this film would have gotten a "Surprising 2 thumbs up!" I just think this is a really underrated thriller.

Not true, a TRULY bad movie fails to get it's plot across. But the big STOP sign was the choice in cast, because as "good" as the performances were, the two leads are looked down upon by critics and audiences, which was the kiss of death and it will never be respected.

And of course, what a surprise, quoting Ebert once again. Because if he says it's good, it MUST be. Again, I respect the man's opinion, but just because he says he liked the movie, doesn't mean that we should not pay attention to the other 99.9% of critics who say the movie sucks.

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Not true, a TRULY bad movie fails to get it's plot across. But the big STOP sign was the choice in cast, because as "good" as the performances were, the two leads are looked down upon by critics and audiences, which was the kiss of death and it will never be respected.

Which is kinda sad, because if an actor who is usually looked down upon finally stars in a good movie with a genuinely good performance, then what happens? It's not really fair. I think people are blinded by their hatred of these two actors that that's the reason why this film got negative reviews. I'll admit I defend some movies that people don't like because I understand their complaints but I really think if Alfred Hitchcock himself were alive today, he would enjoy this film.

And of course, what a surprise, quoting Ebert once again. Because if he says it's good, it MUST be. Again, I respect the man's opinion, but just because he says he liked the movie, doesn't mean that we should not pay attention to the other 99.9% of critics who say the movie sucks.

Well, Roger Ebert is actually a well-respected critic and the fact that he doesn't hate these two actors just proves his un-bias-ness.

Not true, a TRULY bad movie fails to get it's plot across. But the big STOP sign was the choice in cast, because as "good" as the performances were, the two leads are looked down upon by critics and audiences, which was the kiss of death and it will never be respected.

Which is kinda sad, because if an actor who is usually looked down upon finally stars in a good movie with a genuinely good performance, then what happens? It's not really fair. I think people are blinded by their hatred of these two actors that that's the reason why this film got negative reviews. I'll admit I defend some movies that people don't like because I understand their complaints but I really think if Alfred Hitchcock himself were alive today, he would enjoy this film.

Moviewizguy,you don't know Hitchcock's taste.I know what it's like to defend bad movies for considerin'them good,but the performances are another thing.I'm not sayin'H.C. and J.A. were Razzie worthy,but they weren't great.And what you say can't be truth.Look at PRECIOUS.The actors in that movie are anythin'but dramatic actors.We have a comedian who won the Oscar and two singers,one of which won a Razzie years ago and a few good acting awards this year.

B.H.B.,did you watch the movie?'Cuz all your comments are'bout general opinions,rather than your own.

Originally posted by moviewizguy

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

And of course, what a surprise, quoting Ebert once again. Because if he says it's good, it MUST be. Again, I respect the man's opinion, but just because he says he liked the movie, doesn't mean that we should not pay attention to the other 99.9% of critics who say the movie sucks.

Well, Roger Ebert is actually a well-respected critic and the fact that he doesn't hate these two actors just proves his un-bias-ness.

I take back what I said about the performances. Alba was mildly bad, but Christensen was a little above average, which is surprising considering his other performances. Although he wasn't as good as Howard and Olin.

There are a lot of errors in the movie. I've been through a lot of forums and stuff searching, and I agree with most them but I don't think they're enough to consider the movie bad.

Right before I watched this I watched THE GOOD,THE BAD & THE UGLY(5/10). Now that's a movie that hardly keeps you awake.

I don't understand why you admit the movie has errors and bad acting, but yet you still give it such high ratings? That's like Roger Ebert pointing out all the flaws of a Uwe Boll or Seltzerberg movie, but then giving it an A- anyway.

As for "Good, Bad, Ugly," yeah, it might be long, but it's considered an instant classic, and a staple of the Western genre.

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

Because the errors aren't big enough. At least half the plot holes critics mention have an obvious explanation, but they didn't pay attention enough. Jessica Alba's was far from an awful performance, despite coming close. She deserved the nomination, but didn't deserve to "win" and I'm glad she didn't. As for "Worst Couple"...Well, she and Christensen don't make a good couple. The nomination with Dane Cook is alright, and but with Ioan Gruffud she has a lot of chemistry!

Still, 9/10 -- that's supposed to be saved for only the best of the best, movies that will be remembered decades from now. The "Godfathers," the "Citizen Kanes," etc. This movie, is already forgotten, and it's from only 3 years ago. And Alba and Christian just plain suck -- they were only hired for their looks...

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

How would you know? Did you personally experience "anesthesia awareness"? I would hate that feeling. However, I do remember an interview with a woman who went through anesthesia awareness, and said the film depicted it so realistically that it brought her to tears.

1)MWG -- I don't know if you're "late to the party," but aparently it's you and I vs. Burn, not you vs. me, so calm down.

2)I meant things like how small the O.R. was(that's actually debatable) or the fact characters kept coming in and out of there like it's nothing, especially the anesthesiologist, who's supposed to be there all the time...

You should also take into account that any movie made by Hollywood will be based on only a LITTLE bit of fact, but then overly dramatized for entertainment effect. And of course, MWG always has a soft spot for anything emotional, regradless if the overall product sucks. Still doesn't change the fact it's a bad movie that has already been forgotten.

The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum